Muslim world?

[PLC1]

Islam slumbered peacefully for hundreds of year until smart alecks in the US decided to rekindle the fire to destroy the Soviet Union.

FACT : When the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they slaughtered every Jew and Muslim, including women and children. Jews or muslims were not allowed to return until Saladin regained the city. This was convenient for the Moors who were being removed from Spain by..you guessed it..the Christian Church.

Not quite the view of history we are currently being invited to accept - the good christians versus the evil muslims.

Comrade Stalin of Gori

Yes, the world has changed in the past thousand years, hasn't it?

Back then, the Europeans were busy fighting each other, much like the people of the Middle East are today.

But, enlightenment will come eventually, if he human race survives for long enough.

 

[Saxon]

Islam slumbered peacefully for hundreds of year until smart alecks in the US decided to rekindle the fire to destroy the Soviet Union.

FACT : When the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they slaughtered every Jew and Muslim, including women and children. Jews or muslims were not allowed to return until Saladin regained the city. This was convenient for the Moors who were being removed from Spain by..you guessed it..the Christian Church.

Not quite the view of history we are currently being invited to accept - the good christians versus the evil muslims.

Comrade Stalin of Gori

*ahem*

In the year 637 the armies of Islam lead by the Caliph Omar conquered the city of Jerusalem, the center of the Christian world and a magnet for Christian pilgrims. The city's Muslim masters exhibited a certain level of religious tolerance. No new churches were to be built and crosses could not be publicly displayed outside church buildings, but the pilgrims were allowed to continue their treks to the holiest shrines of Christendom (the pilgrims were charged a toll for access). The situation remained stable for over 400 years. Then, in the latter part of the 11th century, the Turks swarmed westward out of Central Asia overrunning all that lay in their path. Jerusalem fell to them in 1076. The atmosphere of tolerance practiced by the followers of Omar was replaced by vicious attacks on the Christian pilgrims and on their sacred shrines in the Holy City. Reports of robberies, beatings, killings, degradation of holy sites and the kidnapping for ransom of the city's patriarch made their way back to Europe. To the Europeans the Holy Land was now in the smothering grip of the Infidel and something must be done.

In response, Pope Urban II called a conference at the city of Clermont, France in 1095, concluding the eight days of deliberation with one of history's most influential speeches. Mounting a lofty scaffold, the Pope exhorted the assembled multitude to wrest the Holy Land from the hands of the Infidel and assured them that God would absolve them from any sin associated with the venture. His words fell on receptive ears as the crowd responded with cries of "It is the will of God!", "It is the will of God!". The Crusades had begun.

The First Crusade was the most successful in that it actually accomplished what it set out to do - conquer Jerusalem. But it had its problems. Responding to the Pope's challenge, thousands of peasants rallied to the cause motivated by a combination of religious fervor and the desire to escape their squalid condition at home. Led by Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless the hapless rabble marched across Europe to Constantinople, only to be slaughtered by the Turks soon after crossing the Bosphorus into Asia Minor.

In the spring of 1097, a host of over 100,000 crusaders joined forces on the eastern side of the Bosphorus. The combined army then fought its way along the coast of the Mediterranean reaching the gates of Jerusalem in June of 1099.

Who provoked who? You were saying...? I should like to remind you, like my hero Hitler said, history is written by the victors. Who won the Crusades? I do not believe for a moment that the Crusaders wasted their time killing Jews and Muslims in the manner depicted. I DO however believe they did kill Muslim soldiers, and quite rightfully so. I merely point out my disappointment that they failed to destroy Islam completely.

 

[BigRob]

The leadership in the Mideast do not like their power threatened. The Saudis condemned ONLY Bin Laden, not his wealthy family, because he was a threat to their kingdom, and their hold on power.

They condemned only Bin Laden because the Bin Laden family had already disowned Osama. Further, if you read Bin Laden's declaration of war he openly states the Saudi monarchy is a main target for dealing with the West. Seems if there was real threat from the rest of his family they would crack down more on the Bin Laden family.

The Saudis are smart enough to know that their very existence is dependent upon the West supporting their economy via oil sales, for they have nothing else to offer. If the Saudis were to be completely cut off from the world, which the West could do if they so desired, their kingdom would collapse, regardless of how much oil they have. Their true wealth stems not just from how much oil they have (we have more), but how very easily it is extracted. Imagine the West deciding to band together and STOP all Saudi oil sales?

The West does not have the power to stop all Saudi oil sales. They could simply sell to China. Further, the West only hurts themselves by destroying oil supply, as this causes the price to rise. So in the end, all we really do is upset a kind of friendly nation in the Middle East, have them turn toward China (thus increasing Chinese power), all for the great goal of paying more for oil. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Prevent any Saudi investments in the West? The kingdom would collapse overnight. Do you have any idea how much Saudi money is tied up in the United States?

Why would we want to prevent investment in our country?

The US could easily snag that money. who is to stop them? You do not recall the US freezing Saudi assets the moment they found out about the 9-11 hijackers? That's the easy part.

There is no good end goal for that action.

Now, the harder part would be to embargo the Saudi oil via the huge US navy. For those who would say 'the Saudis would simply sell the oil to the Chinese and Indians who crave it', how are the Saudis going to sell them oil when they cannot even get their tankers out of their own ports? The US has the most-powerful Navy in the world. USE IT!

They could turn to overland routes if needed. Or simply sell it to their neighbors who then tanker it out. Cutting supply only helps the monarchy as the prices go up. There is nothing to be gained from doing what you are stating.

You mean like the USA had no nerve for fighting right after 9-11? Damn, even US peaceniks wanted the Muslim states crushed. Why would the West need to occupy the Middle East?

Not all people wanted Muslim states crushed.

Just smash their ability to wage war. Destroy their infrastructure, as you destroyed Iraq's. Keep hitting them until THEY lose their desire to fight. I do recall the US destroying the Iraqi infrastructure AT WILL.

We selectively targeted different things, but we by no means destroyed the entire nations infrastructure.

Keep pounding at them, until their own people call for an end to any desire to destroy the West as they have now. No one likes to keep rebuilding that infrastructure again and again and again.

No one likes to be bombed 24/7 either, but you seem to think that this will suddenly turn them into friends.

Remember, this is how the Nazis attempted to destroy the British, but with one very important difference. The British had an airforce. The Muslim states do not have very powerful airforces. They could be taken out in the first day, as the Iraqi War proved.

This depends on the nation. Many other nations have much better air defenses and air forces.

Also, Britain was receiving materiel aid thanks to the Americans, with the world's most-powerful navy protecting the convoys. The Nazis had no true navy to speak of. It was too small. The Muslim states have NO navy. Zero. Nada. Who in hell would aid them anyway?

States that need oil.

So, keep pounding away again and again until there is nothing left of Islam but rubble. They WILL cave, and surrender en masse. They will have thus become too weary of war to ever set up an insurgency. Once they have surrendered, THEN you move your ground forces in, and crush Islam completely.

What about the Islamic people who do not live in the Middle East?

Ah, you mean the Muslims who are 'silent'? Those who are smart enough to know that the West could never be defeated militarily by Islam?

There are plenty of high level Muslims who openly speak out against terrorism.

Those who are also smart enough to seek our conquest in the manner they have set up today, via IMMIGRATION? Those 'silent' Muslims have pushed for massive emigration from Islamic states and into Western states, vowing to conquer us from WITHIN. They have silently declared war. What is the very first thing these 'silent' warriors do once they are within our borders? DEMAND their rights via change to our social structure (sharia law etc.) They have quietly told their brethren in the West to breed, breed, and breed some more, comfort in their knowledge of democracy's greatest weakness, majority rule. As their population within our states grows, so too does their power. This is the work of the smarter, quieter Muslims.

This simply sounds like a conspiracy theory. You assert that the entire Islamic religion is banded together to enact mass immigration to enact Sharia law across the world. What you ignore is that the Middle East is no single unit. Half of them hate the other half, and the idea that they would all band together to carry this out is comical. You have a point on the immigration numbers, but your reason for it is outrageous.

The question about Pakistan is an easy one. Pakistan will in no way turn their nukes away from India. No way, no how. Those nukes of theirs are their ONLY line of defence against the Indians, who are chomping at the bit for a chance to conquer their Muzzie asses.

Let me get this straight. Your plan is to bomb the crap out of Pakistan (an Islamic nation), destroy all their infrastructure, and air power and expect them to sit there and not change their nuclear posture? Are you even aware of the main delivery system for Pakistani nuclear weapons? It is the air force. If we start destroying it, it puts them in a corner quite quickly and in a "use or lose" situation.

We of the West own Pakistan so badly that we have them fighting their fellow Muslims IN THEIR OWN TERRITORY. You think this is mere coincidence? Pakistan does not fight Al Quaida because they do not agree with their idea of conquering the 'infidels'. No, the Pakistan leadership are concerned with their hold on power. Any chance Al Quaida had for Pakistani aid, which they enjoyed against the Soviets, is gone, exactly what the West wanted. As for the Muslim states having the ability to quickly begin their own nuclear program, no, they do not. Iran has been receiving assistance from North Korea in this area. Hell, their very missiles are North Korean. Their nuclear technology is from the West. NOTHING that has to do with nukes in Iran is Iranian in origin. NO other state comes even close. Hell, the Pakistanis learned their technology from my country. Much of the nuclear technology in Iran is Russian in origin. If ever we could get Russia on to our side in any war against Islam, which I believe to be a slam-dunk when one considers Beslan and Chechnya, not to mention the fact Russia is surrounded by Muslim states, they would jump at the chance.

This entire section is so ridiculous is hardly merits a response.

Your analysis of why things occur in the manner that they do is borderline lunacy. The notion that Saudi Arabia or Egypt could not go nuclear in a somewhat short time frame shows a clear lack of understanding of the entire region. Egypt already stated that if Iran goes nuclear they are going as well.

You then state that we in the West own Pakistan. This statement has no bearing on reality. We in the West pour aid money into Pakistan in the hope that they work with us, and often they do not. Hardly the scenario you describe.

This entire section does have factual statements, but the analysis is simply idiotic in my view.

 

[Saxon]

They condemned only Bin Laden because the Bin Laden family had already disowned Osama. Further, if you read Bin Laden's declaration of war he openly states the Saudi monarchy is a main target for dealing with the West. Seems if there was real threat from the rest of his family they would crack down more on the Bin Laden family.

You DO realise the Bin Laden family 'disowned' Osama because they feared the Saudi leadership yes? They knew Osama dealt with the Americans in the past. If you were a wealthy family, and your fortune was tied to a specific country, would you too not take care never to anger the leadership? The Saudis are known to have supported many terrorist groups, with the USA acknowledging this fact, but looking the other way to ensure continued access to Saudi oil. I would ask you to recall that the US government does not purchase the Saudi oil, but large individual corporations like Exxon do. Therefore, the Saudis, being the greedy Jews that they are, look the other way whilst counting their US dollars, as long as they keep their relationship with the US government at a safe distance. You do not honestly think the Americans sent their forces into Saudi Arabia because they wanted to protect the Saudi people from the Iraqis no? Both the Saudis and the Americans knew that the Americans did not give a **** about the Saudi people. They only cared about the Saudi leaders, and the oil they own. Had the Saudis not owned so much oil, are you to suggest the Americans would have saved Saudi Arabia from the Iraqis? *ROTFLMAO* Right, and I have our CN Tower I may sell to you.

The West does not have the power to stop all Saudi oil sales. They could simply sell to China. Further, the West only hurts themselves by destroying oil supply, as this causes the price to rise. So in the end, all we really do is upset a kind of friendly nation in the Middle East, have them turn toward China (thus increasing Chinese power), all for the great goal of paying more for oil. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Oh yes they do. The West are the greatest consumers of Saudi oil, and as such, are quite capable of bankrupting that nation. Your point about the Saudis simply selling oil to China proves your limited knowledge about geopolitics. You see, Canada was approached by the Chinese who were very interested in our oil, the largest reserves in the world, to which we refused, even though they were willing to pay more. We refused because we are the greatest supplier of oil to the USA, AND the USA is our ally. We also have in place a trade agreement true, which could easily be broken, but we don't do that to our allies, even if they do it to us on a constant basis (tariffs on Canadian goods in a free-trade environment).
The Saudis are friendly because they owe the US, and they remain friendly in light of the hundreds of thousands of troops on their soil, and next door. The Saudis are not stupid. They are smart enough to know that Chinese power increases thanks to AMERICAN interests.

Why would we want to prevent investment in our country?

For the same reason I wish to prevent the same investment in mine. Canada's largest nickel mining company, the largest in the world, was purchased outright by the Chinese. We have sold out our nickel resources to the Chinese, something I, as a fascist, would never have allowed. Said 'investment' removes your sovereignty over your own country. Many of your own American people have chided your government over foreign ownership of the USA. First, it was the Japanese, now we have the Saudis and Chinese. Due to such investment, those nations have therefore developed some 'pull' in your nation's politics. I have noticed many Americans angered at the thought that many businesses, many properties, are owned by a regime that openly supports those who would seek the destruction of the USA. Much of that support would be in the form of Saudi cash, in US banks. You are therefore in support of your own country's destruction, which makes you an utter idiot. I would have had every Saudi cent confiscated.

There is no good end goal for that action.

Sure there is. You would thus teach the world that any nation that threatens US security had better be prepared for the consequences. You may suggest the Saudis don't care, and I would beg to differ. Their own economy is very much tied to that of the USA, just as is that of my own country.

They could turn to overland routes if needed. Or simply sell it to their neighbors who then tanker it out. Cutting supply only helps the monarchy as the prices go up. There is nothing to be gained from doing what you are stating.

*ROTFLMAO* You are much too easy. I knew you were going to suggest this. Proof you have not a clue about either geopolitics or even geography. You have not even a clue as to the awesome power of your own navy. Overland routes? Not going to happen. 100% of ALL Saudi oil is transported via supertanker. I know this because Canada is an oil power. The Saudis simply do not have the infrastructure for such a thing to even be contemplated, and for you to suggest they attempt this in dealings with China is comical at best. Then, you suggest that they would simply sell it to their neighbours who would then tanker it out. Once again, you forget the power of US military might. Which 'neighbour' would you be talking about? Already, the Mideast fears the US and their power as displayed by the US's quick dispatchment of the armies of both Iraq and Afghanistan. They defeated the Mideast's most-powerful army in what? A week? Iraq was completely destroy in that short time frame, and Saudi Arabia's 'neighbours' have not a fraction of that Iraqi strength. I would also ask you to learn the power of blockade by the US navy. If they can blockade Saudi shipping, so too can they blockade that of the 'neighbour'. The British had been doing this for centuries, thus increasing our worldwide power. She could do this because none were capable of stopping her. The situation is the same with the USA.
How does cutting the supply, thereby driving prices up, help the monarchy? WTF? THEIR oil is not being sold due to the American blockade, thereby cutting off any income that they would otherwise have if they did what they were told. Again, WTF are you smoking? What will it take for you to understand that the USA, due to their huge military power, holds the cards? How does a people benefit from a resource when that resource is not being sold to anyone? Damn, but this was too easy for me to wipe the floor with you. You simply do NOT understand how fascists operate. There is EVERYTHING to be gained from what I have suggested. You have reasserted your own sovereignty, you have shown the world you could CHANGE the sovereignty of any other nation on the face of the earth at a mere whim. You have made the world take note that you are not someone whom you wish to trifle with, something at which the Soviets excelled, and the Americans could learn a lesson from. If you Americans wish to be pushed around by a bunch of nothing ragheads who would still be roaming the deserts if not for a black substance they found in the ground, feel free to go right ahead. Allow me to make an example. Imagine for a moment that Nazi Germany was being supplied by Saudi Arabia, with that nation openly supporting groups who commit attacks such as that of 9-11. Do you for a moment believe that Saudi Arabia would exist as a nation today? I didn't think so. You think the Nazis were in Africa because of the pretty sand?

 

[Saxon]

Not all people wanted Muslim states crushed.

No, just those who have the brains to recognise the danger they pose to the world. This would mean all non-libtarded morons who are too stupid to see the forest for the trees. I can GUARANTEE if you were to speak with the family of any 9-11 victims, they would laugh at this statement... in private, away from the prying ears of the lunatic liberal fringe. The silent MAJORITY of the West wants them crushed, but they fear the liberals in their country, to the point liberals have even made it LAW to even think of such a suggestion. Fear silences them, not their love of Muslim states.

We selectively targeted different things, but we by no means destroyed the entire nations infrastructure.

You destroyed the nation's entire infrastructure, which was your military goal. This was done to minimise civilian casualties. Check with your own sources there in the USA. Read any article. Check any news station. The infrastructure was destroyed to affect Iraq's ability to wage war against your ground troops when they moved in. You think your forces were waiting at the Kuwait/Iraq border because they wanted to finish their tea first? No, they were waiting for the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure to be completed. When it was, you moved in. Ironically, even with the ground forces racing to Baghdad, your military STILL continued on destroying the infrastructure.
Whatever do you think your government was talking about when handing out contracts to man firms to 'rebuild' Iraq? What was all that 'aid' for? Why all the accusations against the former Republican regime who were profiting from such actions? How could they profit if nothing was destroyed? What were they doing there then? Get over it, you DESTROYED Iraq and you know it.

No one likes to be bombed 24/7 either, but you seem to think that this will suddenly turn them into friends.

who wants them to become your friends? We don't like them anyway. **** 'em. I suggest that doing so teaches them who is master and who is dog. When beaten enough, a dog learns to cower. Teach the Muslim dogs the same trick. We don't want them to be our friends. We want them to be our *****es, to do as they are told, since they are too primitive, stupid and unworthy of our friendship. Remember, these people are still living in the medieval times. I would ask you to learn the Roosevelt saying 'speak softly and carry a big stick'. ****er knew what he was talking about. We fascists would simply take that a step much further, more along the lines of 'raise a stink, and beat the **** out of those who would threaten you with a large stick' or something along those lines. You liberals defend your ideolgoy with accusations and laws. We defend ours with force.

This depends on the nation. Many other nations have much better air defenses and air forces.

Name one. Just one. There is not a single air force the US cannot destroy. ****, Israel alone could easily conquer the entire Middle East, and their air force is but a fraction the size of yours. Iraq had the best air defense in the entire Mideast, and it was reduced to rubble on its first day in the Iraqi War.

States that need oil.

So, any state that needs oil is going to come rushing to the aid of those Mideastern oil states that are at war with the USA? France needed Iraq's oil, which is why they stayed out of the war. I have not seen any French warships taking on any American warships? Yours is an utterly stupid statement. Any state that 'needs' the oil also has their ability to wage war destroyed. The Americans know this, a lesson they learned from WWII, because they know the Allies won the Battle of the Bulge ONLY because the Nazis ran out of oil, to the point they could wage war no more. You think Hitler split the forces spearheading into Moscow because he thought Leningrad and Stalingrad were so pretty? It has been proven that, had Hitler not split those forces, he would easily have taken Moscow. Why did he split his forces? That's easy. Many people claim this is proof Hitler was a dumb general. Those would be liberals who are too stupid to understand. Hitler's forces needed the oilfields, or his ability to wage a war would be affected. This is GENIUS thinking. The generals never concerned themselves with such things, for their thinking was limited, smaller if you will. Hitler's genius allowed him to grasp the entire picture. No oil = vulnerable in the face of your enemy. History has proven him correct.

What about the Islamic people who do not live in the Middle East?

After my suggestion is completed, ban Islam entirely in from the West. Those who do not agree with this ban are free to leave the West at any time. If they 'argue', simply send your paramilitary forces into their homes, drag them out kicking and screaming until they are forced out of the country. National security takes precedence over something as ridiculous as religion. Isn't this exactly what the Muslims did to the Baltics? Let us return the favour, in spades.

 

[Saxon]

There are plenty of high level Muslims who openly speak out against terrorism.

Whom? Just because a couple of Muslims speak out against the actions of their brethren does not mean they be allowed to survive. It is simple numbers... they have more. Our survival is paramount. Theirs is irrelevant. If there are indeed Muslims who truly are against said terrorism, why do nothing to stop it? Easy, they share the same ideology as those 'terrorists' with the only difference being the fact the 'terrorists' are what many would deem as those who 'do', whilst those you claim to 'speak out' against the terrorists' are all talk, and do not mean anything they say. It is part of the Muslim trick of gaining your enemy's confidence before cutting off his head. I would suggest you read the Quran.

This simply sounds like a conspiracy theory. You assert that the entire Islamic religion is banded together to enact mass immigration to enact Sharia law across the world. What you ignore is that the Middle East is no single unit. Half of them hate the other half, and the idea that they would all band together to carry this out is comical. You have a point on the immigration numbers, but your reason for it is outrageous.

It is no conspiracy theory. It is a fact that is happening as we type here. I most certainly do assert that the entire Islamic religion is banded together to do exactly as you suggest. The 'hatred' you speak of is merely degrees of the same religion. Shia vs. Sunni, but both share the same goals. Islamic world domination. Those differences are irrelevant, and would become more so once the world is under the Muslim heel.
Then, if you would kindly explain WHY so many Muslims, after so much time, are suddenly interested in migrating to the West? Why would they leave their Muslim homelands, where they have a GUARANTEED right to practise their religion, to go to a land that does not? It makes no sense for a people who follow a strict religious code to emigrate to a FREE society, a society which Muslims have been railing against from the moment they entered said society. Why move to a society that the Muslims KNOW would not accept their ways? In my city, a group of Muslims purchased items that would allow them to build a massive bomb. They had planned to bomb my city into rubble but they were caught by our RCMP, due to their stupidity (no one accused Muslims of being very bright, which is why they adopt such a stupid and outrageous religion). EVERY SINGLE ONE of those jihadists was BORN IN CANADA! WTF? With this alone, I rest my case.

Let me get this straight. Your plan is to bomb the crap out of Pakistan (an Islamic nation), destroy all their infrastructure, and air power and expect them to sit there and not change their nuclear posture? Are you even aware of the main delivery system for Pakistani nuclear weapons? It is the air force. If we start destroying it, it puts them in a corner quite quickly and in a "use or lose" situation.

Wrong, the main delivery system of Pakistani nuclear weapons is missiles. I would know because it is Canadian technology that allowed them to gain the ability to manufacture nukes in the first place. The air force USED to be their main delivery system, until the Indians started purchasing modern Russian interceptors like the MiG-29 Fulcrum. Pakistan's missile system now gives them an edge over India. It is the ONLY REASON why India does not invade Pakistan in the first place. NONE of Pakistan's current crop of missiles is capable of reaching US soil, AND they would never use them against the USA even if they could, because they would be glass, and they know it. Pakistan supposedly has 42 nuclear missiles. The USA has THOUSANDS. You do the math.

If, as you claim, the Pakis use their airforce to deliver their nuke weapons, and you suggest that if the Paki airforce is destroyed by the American airforce, what relevance would it hold for the Americans if the Pakistanis are 'backed into a corner'? What are they going to do? Toss their hijabs at the Americans? Their airforce is destroyed, remember? So, how do they deliver any retaliatory force? WTF? Pakistan's nuclear posture is utterly irrelevant to the US. India would sit by, and smile idly whilst Pakistan is reduced to ashes. Pakistan is not even a borderline threat to the US.

This entire section is so ridiculous is hardly merits a response.

Your analysis of why things occur in the manner that they do is borderline lunacy. The notion that Saudi Arabia or Egypt could not go nuclear in a somewhat short time frame shows a clear lack of understanding of the entire region. Egypt already stated that if Iran goes nuclear they are going as well.

You then state that we in the West own Pakistan. This statement has no bearing on reality. We in the West pour aid money into Pakistan in the hope that they work with us, and often they do not. Hardly the scenario you describe.

This entire section does have factual statements, but the analysis is simply idiotic in my view.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt do NOT have the ability to go nuclear, not even in a LONG TERM time frame. They have not the technology to develop a nuke, nor do they have the ability to obtain that technology. You do not honestly think that both states would allow Israel to have nukes, with themselves being the targets, thus placing their entire peoples at risk? No nation is that stupid, not even retarded Muslims are that dumb. As I have clearly stated already, Iran's nuclear technology derives from the Russians. They have not the ability to develop nukes from this technology. With all of Iran's bluster about their 'right' to own nukes, why do they still NOT have a nuke? WTF?

Egypt stated they would go nuclear if Iran did? I doubt they said that, but if they did, where do you think that technology is going to come from? That's right. Iran. Further proof they do NOT have the ability to do so on their own. If the Russians pull out of assisting Iran, that country will be nowhere. Canada, on the other hand, a non-nuclear power, could assemble a nuke in mere minutes. Thus, if we say we wish to 'go nuclear', we would do it right quickly. Why not the same for the Muslim states? That's easy. They are nowhere near as technologically advanced as Canada. They aren't even in the same century as we are. Remember where both Pakistan and India gained their technology from us, and that was in the 60s.

The USA owns Pakistan. Why do you think India had cool relationships with the USA? Why would India go on a shopping spree for Russian military hardware? Why purchase virtually all of the former Soviet Union's navy? If not for the US, Pakistan would not exist today as they would have been easily conquered by India. What kept India at bay? Pakistani F-15s and F-16s against what were then aged Soviet 'monkey model' weaponry. If not for this aid, Pakistan would today be part of Greater India.

Who, at this moment, is fighting the Taliban, where before they SUPPORTED them, all because the USA ordered them to do something? That is right. The Paki military, which is destroying large portions of the Taliban, and they do so only because of the government's fear of losing power. The Taliban, being the geniuses they are, killed an entire Paki village. This resulted in massive retribution from the Pakis. Every time the US demands something from Pakistan, they do as they are told. The Pakis must be brighter than most of their Muslim brethren, for they OBEY, which is why they survive.




OWNED.

 

[BigRob]

You DO realise the Bin Laden family 'disowned' Osama because they feared the Saudi leadership yes? They knew Osama dealt with the Americans in the past. If you were a wealthy family, and your fortune was tied to a specific country, would you too not take care never to anger the leadership?

This is speculation and only one of many different theories. Certainly the Saudi government helped to make the Bin Laden group the success it is, but they are capable of operating outside of the kingdom as well.

The Saudis are known to have supported many terrorist groups, with the USA acknowledging this fact, but looking the other way to ensure continued access to Saudi oil. I would ask you to recall that the US government does not purchase the Saudi oil, but large individual corporations like Exxon do. Therefore, the Saudis, being the greedy Jews that they are, look the other way whilst counting their US dollars, as long as they keep their relationship with the US government at a safe distance. You do not honestly think the Americans sent their forces into Saudi Arabia because they wanted to protect the Saudi people from the Iraqis no? Both the Saudis and the Americans knew that the Americans did not give a **** about the Saudi people. They only cared about the Saudi leaders, and the oil they own. Had the Saudis not owned so much oil, are you to suggest the Americans would have saved Saudi Arabia from the Iraqis? *ROTFLMAO* Right, and I have our CN Tower I may sell to you.

I agree that the main reason we care about Saudi Arabia because of their oil.

Oh yes they do. The West are the greatest consumers of Saudi oil, and as such, are quite capable of bankrupting that nation.

Can you explain the simple economic theory of supply and demand? As supply falls, the price of what is available will go up if the demand is still in place. Since the oil market is a world oil market, all we would be doing is driving up the price of oil by attempting to bankrupt Saudi Arabia.

Your point about the Saudis simply selling oil to China proves your limited knowledge about geopolitics. You see, Canada was approached by the Chinese who were very interested in our oil, the largest reserves in the world, to which we refused, even though they were willing to pay more.

Your Canadian example is meaningless in a discussion about China. China continues to have an ever growing need for oil. Seeing as how the oil market and prices is a world market, if you are unable to prevent China from importing oil, you are unable to prevent anyone from actually selling it.

The Saudis are friendly because they owe the US, and they remain friendly in light of the hundreds of thousands of troops on their soil, and next door. The Saudis are not stupid. They are smart enough to know that Chinese power increases thanks to AMERICAN interests.

Not to mention we sell them boatloads of weapons.

For the same reason I wish to prevent the same investment in mine. Canada's largest nickel mining company, the largest in the world, was purchased outright by the Chinese. We have sold out our nickel resources to the Chinese, something I, as a fascist, would never have allowed. Said 'investment' removes your sovereignty over your own country. Many of your own American people have chided your government over foreign ownership of the USA. First, it was the Japanese, now we have the Saudis and Chinese. Due to such investment, those nations have therefore developed some 'pull' in your nation's politics. I have noticed many Americans angered at the thought that many businesses, many properties, are owned by a regime that openly supports those who would seek the destruction of the USA. Much of that support would be in the form of Saudi cash, in US banks. You are therefore in support of your own country's destruction, which makes you an utter idiot. I would have had every Saudi cent confiscated.

Foreign investment would be destroyed if we simply seized foreign assets of every country we decided we did not like. The reason many of these nations are so invested in the United States is simply because the dollar remains one of the best investments in the world. Certainly they can have more pull in our politics, but should the Chinese call in their debt, we will simply print more money. In that case their currency backing collapses, driving down their export potential. I have no problem with foreign investment or foreign ownership of US companies.

*ROTFLMAO* You are much too easy. I knew you were going to suggest this. Proof you have not a clue about either geopolitics or even geography. You have not even a clue as to the awesome power of your own navy. Overland routes? Not going to happen. 100% of ALL Saudi oil is transported via supertanker.

Unless you assume Saudi Arabia will exist in a vacuum and not adapt to changes that we present in the market, then your point carries no validity. In a world market, Saudi oil can be sold to its neighbors and shipped out in that manner, and new pipelines can indeed be constructed, and there are certain existing pipelines that could be tapped into should the tanker option suddenly collapse.

Once again, you forget the power of US military might. Which 'neighbour' would you be talking about? Already, the Mideast fears the US and their power as displayed by the US's quick dispatchment of the armies of both Iraq and Afghanistan. They defeated the Mideast's most-powerful army in what? A week? Iraq was completely destroy in that short time frame, and Saudi Arabia's 'neighbours' have not a fraction of that Iraqi strength.

The world knows that right now the US does not have the stomach to go to war with anyone in the Middle East, especially over oil. To think that the US public would get behind this is outrageous. Further, you would be surprised at the alliances of convenience that arise when that much money is involved. Additionally, Iraqi oil was supposedly embargoed, and they managed to smuggle huge amounts into Syria which was then sold on the world market. It was not simply the US in that supposed sanction regime, it was the entire UN, and it was a failure.

I would also ask you to learn the power of blockade by the US navy. If they can blockade Saudi shipping, so too can they blockade that of the 'neighbour'.

To what end? The alienation of the entire region?

How does cutting the supply, thereby driving prices up, help the monarchy? WTF? THEIR oil is not being sold due to the American blockade, thereby cutting off any income that they would otherwise have if they did what they were told.

Their situation is helped because it is an impossibility to shut off a Saudi oil flow.

Again, WTF are you smoking? What will it take for you to understand that the USA, due to their huge military power, holds the cards? How does a people benefit from a resource when that resource is not being sold to anyone?

We hold many cards yes, however we do not have the power to decide who can and cannot operate in the world oil market.

Damn, but this was too easy for me to wipe the floor with you. You simply do NOT understand how fascists operate. There is EVERYTHING to be gained from what I have suggested. You have reasserted your own sovereignty, you have shown the world you could CHANGE the sovereignty of any other nation on the face of the earth at a mere whim. You have made the world take note that you are not someone whom you wish to trifle with, something at which the Soviets excelled, and the Americans could learn a lesson from.

Last time I checked the Soviets no longer exist. Further, all you have stated to date is "USE THE MILITARY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!" In reality, this is not an actual option, regardless of your grand ideas.

 

[BigRob]

No, just those who have the brains to recognise the danger they pose to the world. This would mean all non-libtarded morons who are too stupid to see the forest for the trees. I can GUARANTEE if you were to speak with the family of any 9-11 victims, they would laugh at this statement... in private, away from the prying ears of the lunatic liberal fringe. The silent MAJORITY of the West wants them crushed, but they fear the liberals in their country, to the point liberals have even made it LAW to even think of such a suggestion. Fear silences them, not their love of Muslim states.

So, in your view all "non-libtarded morons" should demand the extermination of every race that has ever had a member do them wrong?

You destroyed the nation's entire infrastructure, which was your military goal. This was done to minimise civilian casualties. Check with your own sources there in the USA. Read any article. Check any news station. The infrastructure was destroyed to affect Iraq's ability to wage war against your ground troops when they moved in. You think your forces were waiting at the Kuwait/Iraq border because they wanted to finish their tea first? No, they were waiting for the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure to be completed. When it was, you moved in. Ironically, even with the ground forces racing to Baghdad, your military STILL continued on destroying the infrastructure.

No one is denying that we targeted Iraqi infrastructure, obviously that is needed to win the war, however by no means did we obliterate beyond repair the infrastructure.

Whatever do you think your government was talking about when handing out contracts to man firms to 'rebuild' Iraq? What was all that 'aid' for? Why all the accusations against the former Republican regime who were profiting from such actions? How could they profit if nothing was destroyed? What were they doing there then? Get over it, you DESTROYED Iraq and you know it.

Your reading comprehension seems a bit slow here, no one said we did not destroy a lot of stuff, however again, we did not obliterate the entire infrastructure beyond repair.

who wants them to become your friends? We don't like them anyway. **** 'em. I suggest that doing so teaches them who is master and who is dog. When beaten enough, a dog learns to cower. Teach the Muslim dogs the same trick. We don't want them to be our friends. We want them to be our *****es, to do as they are told, since they are too primitive, stupid and unworthy of our friendship. Remember, these people are still living in the medieval times. I would ask you to learn the Roosevelt saying 'speak softly and carry a big stick'. ****er knew what he was talking about. We fascists would simply take that a step much further, more along the lines of 'raise a stink, and beat the **** out of those who would threaten you with a large stick' or something along those lines. You liberals defend your ideolgoy with accusations and laws. We defend ours with force.

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of being a liberal, but ok. However, in your beating a dog analogy, a cornered dog often lashes out and bites you. All of your policy positions generally advocate for a version of world war. You do not have to be in a state of war to exert power.

Name one. Just one. There is not a single air force the US cannot destroy. ****, Israel alone could easily conquer the entire Middle East, and their air force is but a fraction the size of yours. Iraq had the best air defense in the entire Mideast, and it was reduced to rubble on its first day in the Iraqi War.

Again, your reading. I never said our air force would be beaten, but other nations do have better air defense than Iraq did. Iran for example has been buying Russian air defenses for years now in preparation of a potential attack. While I have little doubt we would win a war with Iran should it occur, it is not going to be a cakewalk.

So, any state that needs oil is going to come rushing to the aid of those Mideastern oil states that are at war with the USA? France needed Iraq's oil, which is why they stayed out of the war. I have not seen any French warships taking on any American warships?

The notion that "aid" must come in the form of military action is yours and yours alone. I did not suggest anyone was going to rush in to fight the US should your war occur, however, they will take certain steps to ensure that their access to needed oil is ensured.

After my suggestion is completed, ban Islam entirely in from the West. Those who do not agree with this ban are free to leave the West at any time. If they 'argue', simply send your paramilitary forces into their homes, drag them out kicking and screaming until they are forced out of the country. National security takes precedence over something as ridiculous as religion. Isn't this exactly what the Muslims did to the Baltics? Let us return the favour, in spades.

We have a thing in the United States called the Constitution that ensures that its citizenry has the freedom of religion. We also have protections that ensure paramilitary forces will not bust into our homes to drag people out. National Security does not take precedence over the Constitution. Perhaps in your nation this is not the case, but here it is a violation of what this country was founded on.

 

[BigRob]

Whom?

Thousands of Muslim scholars both domestically and abroad, not to mention the king of Jordan. The list can go on.

Just because a couple of Muslims speak out against the actions of their brethren does not mean they be allowed to survive.

You do not have to go on the news or make an official statement to oppose something.

If there are indeed Muslims who truly are against said terrorism, why do nothing to stop it? Easy, they share the same ideology as those 'terrorists' with the only difference being the fact the 'terrorists' are what many would deem as those who 'do', whilst those you claim to 'speak out' against the terrorists' are all talk, and do not mean anything they say.

Does this mean that in your view those in the United States who oppose the Iraq War and do not blow themselves up in front of deploying units or destroy Army equipment actually share the ideology of those who support the war?

It is no conspiracy theory. It is a fact that is happening as we type here. I most certainly do assert that the entire Islamic religion is banded together to do exactly as you suggest. The 'hatred' you speak of is merely degrees of the same religion. Shia vs. Sunni, but both share the same goals.

The only verifiable fact here is that immigration is indeed occurring. To argue that Sunni and Shia are now united to carry this out is unverifiable and therefore useless. Also, it fails to account for the massive violence between the two sects.

Then, if you would kindly explain WHY so many Muslims, after so much time, are suddenly interested in migrating to the West? Why would they leave their Muslim homelands, where they have a GUARANTEED right to practise their religion, to go to a land that does not?

Perhaps because they do not agree with the leadership in the area...Further, those coming to the West often have the right to practice whatever religion they want.

It makes no sense for a people who follow a strict religious code to emigrate to a FREE society, a society which Muslims have been railing against from the moment they entered said society. Why move to a society that the Muslims KNOW would not accept their ways?

Perhaps because they do not ascribe to the beliefs the leaders of their former nations espouse and they want to escape it.

In my city, a group of Muslims purchased items that would allow them to build a massive bomb. They had planned to bomb my city into rubble but they were caught by our RCMP, due to their stupidity (no one accused Muslims of being very bright, which is why they adopt such a stupid and outrageous religion). EVERY SINGLE ONE of those jihadists was BORN IN CANADA! WTF? With this alone, I rest my case.

This proves your point about immigration? One group in one country? Domestic extremism has always existed, and there is no verifiable proof to date to blame it on some mass planned Islamic immigration.

Wrong, the main delivery system of Pakistani nuclear weapons is missiles. I would know because it is Canadian technology that allowed them to gain the ability to manufacture nukes in the first place. The air force USED to be their main delivery system, until the Indians started purchasing modern Russian interceptors like the MiG-29 Fulcrum.

Your statement is half true. They do indeed have a few missile systems capable of delivery, however their Air Force remains the bigger player in the nuclear mission, and not the Army. Eliminating this option backs them into the same corner.

Pakistan's missile system now gives them an edge over India. It is the ONLY REASON why India does not invade Pakistan in the first place. NONE of Pakistan's current crop of missiles is capable of reaching US soil, AND they would never use them against the USA even if they could, because they would be glass, and they know it. Pakistan supposedly has 42 nuclear missiles. The USA has THOUSANDS. You do the math.

Since when did a nuclear missile have to reach the United States to be devastating to the United States? Further, perhaps they simply "loose" a few warheads. Perhaps they then come to the US and tell us they lost them and need assistance. If a warhead were to then go off, I doubt we would start a war with Pakistan over it.

If, as you claim, the Pakis use their airforce to deliver their nuke weapons, and you suggest that if the Paki airforce is destroyed by the American airforce, what relevance would it hold for the Americans if the Pakistanis are 'backed into a corner'? What are they going to do? Toss their hijabs at the Americans? Their airforce is destroyed, remember? So, how do they deliver any retaliatory force? WTF? Pakistan's nuclear posture is utterly irrelevant to the US. India would sit by, and smile idly whilst Pakistan is reduced to ashes. Pakistan is not even a borderline threat to the US.

Unless you destroy the entire air force at once, they remain capable of using a weapon, as well as the missile capability they have to retaliate. Your idea of an attack is not practical in terms of actual military capability.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt do NOT have the ability to go nuclear, not even in a LONG TERM time frame. They have not the technology to develop a nuke, nor do they have the ability to obtain that technology.

With their economies and infrastructure they could become a nuclear power in a relatively short time frame.

You do not honestly think that both states would allow Israel to have nukes, with themselves being the targets, thus placing their entire peoples at risk? No nation is that stupid, not even retarded Muslims are that dumb. As I have clearly stated already, Iran's nuclear technology derives from the Russians. They have not the ability to develop nukes from this technology. With all of Iran's bluster about their 'right' to own nukes, why do they still NOT have a nuke? WTF?

If Israel were to test a weapon or admit to having them, you would see a different tone struck by both parties. Egypt and others know that Israel is not going to use a nuclear weapon unless threatened with survival. These nations as well have accepted the fact that Israel is going to exist, and as long as Israel does not test or admit to having weapons they will maintain the status quo, assuming Iran does not test.

Additionally, what makes you so sure that Iran does not already possess a warhead? The fact that they have not tested? Does a state have to test to have one? In this case, I think Iran has more to gain by not testing.

Egypt stated they would go nuclear if Iran did? I doubt they said that, but if they did, where do you think that technology is going to come from? That's right. Iran.

The Egyptian foreign minister stated that if "one more nation in the region went nuclear, Egypt would be forced to reevaluate its own nuclear position." Further, Iran is not going to Egypt any nuclear information. Iran would be a clear rival of Egypt for regional hegemony. Nuclear technology is 70 years old. It is not as complicated as you make it out to be for a developed nation that decides to get a weapon to get a weapon.

 

[BigRob]

Further proof they do NOT have the ability to do so on their own. If the Russians pull out of assisting Iran, that country will be nowhere. Canada, on the other hand, a non-nuclear power, could assemble a nuke in mere minutes. Thus, if we say we wish to 'go nuclear', we would do it right quickly. Why not the same for the Muslim states? That's easy. They are nowhere near as technologically advanced as Canada. They aren't even in the same century as we are. Remember where both Pakistan and India gained their technology from us, and that was in the 60s.

North Korea is probably helping Iran with its nuclear desires more so than Russia. Russia has signed agreements to prevent this and claims they are living up to them, but it remains to be seen.

The Muslim states could not go nuclear in a "matter of minutes" because they would need to build the infrastructure first. However, this is not going to take all that long should they make the decision to do so. And Pakistan got nuclear help from China more than anyone else.

The USA owns Pakistan. Why do you think India had cool relationships with the USA? Why would India go on a shopping spree for Russian military hardware? Why purchase virtually all of the former Soviet Union's navy? If not for the US, Pakistan would not exist today as they would have been easily conquered by India. What kept India at bay? Pakistani F-15s and F-16s against what were then aged Soviet 'monkey model' weaponry. If not for this aid, Pakistan would today be part of Greater India.

China has been backing Pakistan for a long time now, and the United States has mostly started helping Pakistan (with some exceptions) post 9-11. India is not happy about the fact that we are pouring money into Pakistan, and not pouring the same amount of money into India at the same time.

Who, at this moment, is fighting the Taliban, where before they SUPPORTED them, all because the USA ordered them to do something? That is right. The Paki military, which is destroying large portions of the Taliban, and they do so only because of the government's fear of losing power. The Taliban, being the geniuses they are, killed an entire Paki village. This resulted in massive retribution from the Pakis. Every time the US demands something from Pakistan, they do as they are told. The Pakis must be brighter than most of their Muslim brethren, for they OBEY, which is why they survive.

Pakistan helps sometimes and other times does not. Internal Pakistani politics is also playing a large role here, but that is another topic. The US has pushed for the Pakistani military to eradicate the Taliban, and the Pakistani government has responded by signing power sharing deals with the Frontier regions and almost losing complete control of the country. And you claim we own them?

OWNED.

Your point of view is simply "war war war." For what nation has that tactic ever worked. Please name one.

 

[Saxon]

Damn, someone loves him some Mudslimes. Whew, I seem to have him all worked up. So many ways to him him, judging from his posts.

 

[BigRob]

Damn, someone loves him some Mudslimes. Whew, I seem to have him all worked up. So many ways to him him, judging from his posts.

Pathetic.